About your Search

20130208
20130208
STATION
MSNBC 3
MSNBCW 3
CSPAN 2
KQED (PBS) 2
KRCB (PBS) 2
CNBC 1
CSPAN2 1
WETA 1
WMPT (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 18
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)
repre-view of the state of the union. plus, the latest obstacles to chuck hagel's confirmation. please share your weather pictures with us, if it's safe, tweet us at mitchellreport or on facebook.com/mitchell reports. i'm only in my 60's... i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, it could save you thousands in out-of-pocket costs. call now to request your free decision guide. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and you never need a referral. see why millions of people have already enrolled in the only medicare suppleme
, the president wants to replace secretary panetta -- the man he wants to replace panetta with, chuck hagel, is having his confirmation held up. now, can you explain inwhat this is about? what's happened? >> reporter: sure. well, the vote for chuck hagel to be confirmed has to come out of the senate armed services committee, and republicans there have asked mr. hagel for really some intense background questions as to whether or not he has been paid by any company that has dealings with foreign companies in the last five years. they want to have all the records about anything that he's been paid $5,000 or more through speeches or various things over the last few years. karl kevin thoucarl levin thoug the ranking member for 26 years, says this has been unprecedented by republicans. they're really going after all this information because they simply want to delay mr. hagel. he released a letter today that said mr. hagel's nomination will move forward next week. hopefully be voted out of committee. that's what democrats feel. and they held the numbers there, 14-12, so they believe it will go fo
to be in the hagel hearings, and you talked about the iraq surged and needing one vote. i remember the mccain-kennedy immigration reform vote when you needed a last vote, and it did not come. you have been struggling along time about the future face of the country. when to solve a lot of insoluble problems. we are back at it. i am interested in how this will play out between you and president obama. how will you get it done this time? >> i think we will. by the way, and when we are doing immigration, i think of ted kennedy all the time. >> is there a ted kennedy up there today? >> no one of his stature on either side. take kenneth d. and i have gone nose to nose on the floor of the senate -- ted kennedy and i have gone nose to nose on the floor of the senate, literally, walked off, and said, "did a pretty good, didn't we?" he gave his word and he kept his word. that is not as abundant a commodity as some civics students might think. what has changed? i think a number of things have changed. we have made significant improvements on border security. that was a key issue to me. arizona is still
-offs for national security and we just can't go there. >> does chuck hagel get this? can he do the job in your opinion? is he aware of these argue ents? >> i certainly believe so. i think he has talked about a bloated defense enterprise. i certainly hope he will take some of these issues on if he is confirmed. >> once again just to conclude and we appreciate your time very, very much. we can protect our national security as we must but at the same time we can slim down the defense department, we can make some cuts. that's what you're saying? >> i believe that's what we can do if we take the cuts in the right place. >> michelle flournoy, former undersecretary of defense under president obama, we appreciate it very much. thank you. >> now, folks, prepare yourself, america the mighty, ann coulter is about to join us. there's a lot that happened today that we'll have to ask her about that include new revelations about benz and the controversial drone program. you don't want to miss this discussion. ♪ if loving you is wrong ♪ i don't wanna be right [ record scratch ] what?! it's not bad for you
chuck hagel i would argue, is the most pro iran engagement u.s. national security cabinet since the 1979 revolution. this is an administration which desperately does want to do a deal with iran to diffuse the nuclear issue and to gradually reduce our footprint in the middle east. they certainly don't want to the go to war. and i'm not sure if ayatollah khamenei understands this is going to be the best deal he's going to get from the united states. >> suarez:. >> brown: well, the demands for the u.s. and others seems fairly clear and the push for sanctions go on. the iranians say they want the sanctions lifted first. so have you heard anything that suggests it's a sort of vicious cycle in that regard? >> this has also been a perennial challenge that synchronizing negotiations, who makes the first overture, but it's not within the realm of possibilities that the u.s. congress or president obama is going to remove sanctions before the negotiations start and i do see the two sides still being quite far away before any resolution can be reached. >> brown: you do? you don't see any particular
've changed their mind. now sequestration, we might do it. >> i love when they bring this up during the hagel hearing and they talk about sequestration, and they go the witness and talking about what a disaster sequestration would be for the defense budget. if you just arrived from another country or mars you would be like who are the monsters who came up with the sequestration idea? who could have possibly voted for this thing? it is the people sitting that crafted it. >> the ironies speak like a birthday cake. unfortunately, we have to leave it there. we are out of time. >> can we kick the can? >> we are going to kick the can down the road. do not forget to catch chris and paul krugman this weekend. "up" is on tomorrow and every weekend and sundays with host at 8:00 a.m. eastern. chris hayes, thank you, as always, and thanks to the rest of our panel. franklin, carrie, and hans. that is all for now. i'll see you back here monday at noon eastern, 9:00 a.m. pacific when i'm joined by ari, jonathan, jake, and lee gallagher. if you are snowed in or not, i'll be doing my best impression of lawren
nomination than was chuck hagel the week before. he was far more confident, far more informed, authoritative. but this is the first time it was ever debated, the subject. i mean it's gone undebated. and i have to concede that much of the criticism, i think from conservative press is absolutely valid. if this were george w. bush and dick cheney and we had increased by sixfold the number of unmanned attacks on other countries that are not combatant countries, that were not at war with, there would have been far more hue and cry. and it is interesting that the president, the only criticism in the president seems to be among a few liberals, and the support seems to be from people like john bolton-- and so it's a debate i think we have to have, we should have and it's been cloaked in secrecy and secrecy is the sacrosanct secular religion of this city. >> woodruff: so this has stirred it up? >> i think so, because of the leaked memo and the system, we are having a debate about drones. and i guess if i want a drone policy i want it run by a franciscan, not a jesuit. but he didn't really defend it,
. senator hagel. later today i'm going to be talking to john brennan. can you give a brief assessment of the two gentle and the capability and the readiness to assume the positions? >> yes, certainly. obviously that's something that the committees now have the opportunity evaluate. but in my view, both of them are outstanding individuals that have a great deal of experience and capability to be able to perform in an outstanding fashion in each of their jobs. senator hagel is someone who, you know, served in the military, worked up here on the hill. understand the issues that are involve there had. i think can be a very effective leader at the pentagon. john brennan is somebody i worked with the at the director of cia and continued to work with in this capacity. i found him to be responsible about how we can effectively conduct operations again al qaeda and against those that would attack this country. he is -- as somebody said, a straight shooter. somebody who, you know, gives you his best opinion, he doesn't play games. he is somebody who i think, you know, can honestly represent the
heard from senator lindsey graham. he said chuck hagel won't be confirmed for secretary of defense until we hear from leon panetta what exactly went down in benghazi. so leon panetta showed up with general martin dempsey and they testified that the response was adequate and it was enough and there simply was not enough time to get help to our four americans who died in benghazi. they said, even though there were aircraft 90 minutes away, it would have taken nine to 12 hours to deploy an armed aircraft. extraordinarily, i don't see how that's possible. >> brian: i don't see how it is either. not having been secretary of defense, you have to take their word. but under questioning, it never came out when the president was run examining never came out from mitt romney to president obama directly. it was up to lindsey graham who has been indefatiguable in defending the truth. listen. >> if i were a family member and one of my loved ones was killed in benghazi, i would be sick to my stomach of the the president of the united states talked to the secretary of defense for 15 minutes, never talke
hagel. and since we are now just weeks away from the automatic cuts to federal spending, including defense, let me say this -- there is no reason, no reason for that to happen, putting our fiscal house in order calls for a balanced approach, not massive indiscriminate cuts that could have a severe impact on our military preparedness. so here today for the sake of our prosperity, for the sake of all these men and women in uniform, and all their brothers and sisters in uniform that they represent, now is the time to act, for democrats and republicans to come together in the same spirit that leon panetta always brought to public service, solving problems, not trying to score points, doing right for the country, not for any particular political agenda. sustaining our economic recovery, balancing budgets, leon knows something about it, but also maintaining the finest military in history. leon, this too will be part of your legacy, for no one has raised their voices firmly or as forcefully on behalf of our trips as you have. you have served with integrity and decency, and grace. you are
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)